Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Stone wall found
Hack, post: 446773, member: 708 wrote: Yes Tom. In most cases the wall is considered a monument and unless otherwise called for the center of a monument is held.
I attached a survey we did that could go along way in explaining to you how we work. If you look at the westerly boundary the wall is almost straight and the field distance matches the 1887 deed distance remarkable well. We did not set the majority of the drill holes on that side. Instead we found and held those from an abutting survey. You will see I circled one drill hole we set. This we set because we felt the abutting survey missed a significant angle point.
In honesty my crew may have not called all the found drill hole angle points.When using an abutting survey it’s not too many that is the problem but not enough which will create a problem.
This is the common method in the three New England states that I work in for surveying walls. you also should know that the deed to field comparison is extraordinary in this case. I’m guessing that the deed was actually based on a survey or at least written by a surveyor who had surveyed the property.
Thanks for sharing, Hack. I like you plat, too I also like how you showed the travel of the stream but gave the straight-line bearing and distance between endpoints. Unless we hear better from any Texans on the absolute right way to do it, I think you-all have pretty good solutions.
I see a few places where you could set a couple more drill holes
Just kidding, nice looking plan.
Hack, post: 446773, member: 708 wrote: Yes Tom. In most cases the wall is considered a monument and unless otherwise called for the center of a monument is held.
I attached a survey we did that could go along way in explaining to you how we work. If you look at the westerly boundary the wall is almost straight and the field distance matches the 1887 deed distance remarkable well. We did not set the majority of the drill holes on that side. Instead we found and held those from an abutting survey. You will see I circled one drill hole we set. This we set because we felt the abutting survey missed a significant angle point.
In honesty my crew may have not called all the found drill hole angle points.When using an abutting survey it’s not too many that is the problem but not enough which will create a problem.
This is the common method in the three New England states that I work in for surveying walls. you also should know that the deed to field comparison is extraordinary in this case. I’m guessing that the deed was actually based on a survey or at least written by a surveyor who had surveyed the property.
I’m curious why the rock wall along the road is considered the property line, rather than the centerline of the road. Is that how they do it in MA?
ashton, post: 446858, member: 422 wrote: I’m curious why the rock wall along the road is considered the property line, rather than the centerline of the road. Is that how they do it in MA?
We do it the same way here in CT.
Hack, post: 446773, member: 708 wrote: Yes Tom. In most cases the wall is considered a monument and unless otherwise called for the center of a monument is held.
I attached a survey we did that could go along way in explaining to you how we work. If you look at the westerly boundary the wall is almost straight and the field distance matches the 1887 deed distance remarkable well. We did not set the majority of the drill holes on that side. Instead we found and held those from an abutting survey. You will see I circled one drill hole we set. This we set because we felt the abutting survey missed a significant angle point.
In honesty my crew may have not called all the found drill hole angle points.When using an abutting survey it’s not too many that is the problem but not enough which will create a problem.
This is the common method in the three New England states that I work in for surveying walls. you also should know that the deed to field comparison is extraordinary in this case. I’m guessing that the deed was actually based on a survey or at least written by a surveyor who had surveyed the property.
My maps look almost the same as yours. I walk along the stonewall and look for angle points as they may have been intended to make a change in direction for the property line. The deed may say “by land of Joe” it may call out the stonewall, it may not. But what was the intent in constructing the wall? Why is there an angle point in the wall?
JPH, post: 446803, member: 6636 wrote: I see a few places where you could set a couple more drill holes
Just kidding, nice looking plan.
That isn’t our normal format. We we’re just trying something a bit different.
Joe the Surveyor, post: 446859, member: 118 wrote: We do it the same way here in CT.
Joe
It depends on the who did the taking. City, town and county roads are generally taken as easement. Although the ownership is centerline common practice is to show to sideline. State roads are taken in fee.ashton, post: 446858, member: 422 wrote: I’m curious why the rock wall along the road is considered the property line, rather than the centerline of the road. Is that how they do it in MA?
Ashton
It depends on the who did the taking. City, town and county roads are generally taken as easement. Although the ownership is centerline common practice is to show to sideline. State roads are taken in fee.
ashton, post: 446858, member: 422 wrote: I’m curious why the rock wall along the road is considered the property line, rather than the centerline of the road. Is that how they do it in MA?
Ashton, I’m confused by your post. I work VT a bit, and I see both practices about equally, from north to south in the state. I don’t know where you work, but maybe it’s done just the one way in your neck of the woods.
JPH, post: 447005, member: 6636 wrote: Ashton, I’m confused by your post. I work VT a bit, and I see both practices about equally, from north to south in the state. I don’t know where you work, but maybe it’s done just the one way in your neck of the woods.
My “work” is as a Justice of the Peace. One of my volunteer duties is, together with the other members of the Board of Civil Authority, to hear appeals of the value assigned to properties for property tax purposes. I see tax maps with a mixture of the boundary being shown as the centerline, or the edge of the ROW. There is also the issue of an artificial channel created by the Army Corps of Engineers where, apparently, the adjacent properties retain ownership of the land but the public has a ROW to boat over the land.
The problem is that, after corresponding with the Secretary of State’s office, there is no statewide policy about how to calculate the area of parcels for property tax purposes. My own personal opinion is that areas under a public ROW should be excluded for property tax purposes, but that’s just my opinion; nowhere is it codified.
Hack, post: 446871, member: 708 wrote: Ashton
It depends on the who did the taking. City, town and county roads are generally taken as easement. Although the ownership is centerline common practice is to show to sideline. State roads are taken in fee.
I would imagine that examination of the history of the properties would reveal whether the road belongs to some level of government in fee, the adjoinders own to the centerline, or through some quirk of deed wording and the chronological order of the deeds, one adjoinder owns to the far edge of the road. If such information is discovered, it seems logical to me to memorialize it on the deed. But then again, property tax authorities with a shallow knowledge of land surveying could make a mess of anything they’re not used to seeing.
ashton, post: 447009, member: 422 wrote: But then again, property tax authorities with a shallow knowledge of land surveying could make a mess of anything they’re not used to seeing.
Agreed.
The landowners derive greater land value from having access to the public road. If the taxes were calculated to include the areas of land within the roadway, they could only include those roads that are held by the government as easements. I believe it would be unfair to calculate some landowners’ property taxes based on the land area within the roadway easements, and not include the roadway areas where those are owned by the government in fee. It is more balanced and fair to simply exclude all road areas from taxation, and calculate the value of the land with regard to access to a public way.
Peter Lothian – MA ME, post: 447165, member: 4512 wrote: The landowners derive greater land value from having access to the public road. If the taxes were calculated to include the areas of land within the roadway, they could only include those roads that are held by the government as easements. I believe it would be unfair to calculate some landowners’ property taxes based on the land area within the roadway easements, and not include the roadway areas where those are owned by the government in fee. It is more balanced and fair to simply exclude all road areas from taxation, and calculate the value of the land with regard to access to a public way.
“…more balanced and fair…”
Haha, we’re talking about government agencies here, right? Ha, good one
Peter Lothian – MA ME, post: 447165, member: 4512 wrote: The landowners derive greater land value from having access to the public road. If the taxes were calculated to include the areas of land within the roadway, they could only include those roads that are held by the government as easements. I believe it would be unfair to calculate some landowners’ property taxes based on the land area within the roadway easements, and not include the roadway areas where those are owned by the government in fee. It is more balanced and fair to simply exclude all road areas from taxation, and calculate the value of the land with regard to access to a public way.
I agree. I would expect two otherwise identical properties, one where the road was a public ROW held by the government, and the other where the road was held in fee by the government, to sell for the same price, so they should be treated the same for tax purposes. But that isn’t written down anywhere, it’s just our opinion (at least in VT).
ashton, post: 446858, member: 422 wrote: I’m curious why the rock wall along the road is considered the property line, rather than the centerline of the road. Is that how they do it in MA?
Depending on what is typical for an agency or a state, they might acquire fee-simple ownership of the roadway, or they might hold it as a right-of-way easement So the rock wall could be at the right-of-way limit, or it might constitute an actual boundary. (again repeating some of the other information here)
Log in to reply.